On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > vii. Every person has the right to be formally penalized only > through well-defined and common judicial processes, and to > consider invalid any bills of attainder passed against em.
Except, reading the text, the proposal in question just makes a change with no reference to punishment. How does one differentiate punishment from bug fix (e.g., after a scam, a proposal to reset scores to pre-scam states). We always want to be able to use proposals to "fix things", including things that affect individuals, and those fixes will inherently "penalize" people. When the fix is after a scam, that would seem like a punishment. (Note: if we were still using equity it would work fine; you could limit proposals to compensatory changes but not the punitive ones. But we're not). A better idea is to make sure the things that are punishing are secured enough that proposal-punishment has a high enough bar. Several of those things (rests, registration) are, doing that for officeholding would be good... others? Your suggestion does this, in that it secures "punishement" at power-3, but the problem is it really define "punishment". -G.
